She had a limited number of choices.
She could go along.
She could walk away.
She could walk away and report it.
Of those choices at that moment in time, what are you saying she should have done?
Jenn Sterger rips ESPN for job interview that ended in strip club
- Thread starter surfnole
- Start date
She had a limited number of choices.
She could go along.
She could walk away.
She could walk away and report it.
Of those choices at that moment in time, what are you saying she should have done?
Jenn herself probably isn't but for the sake of conversation let's briefly talk about women who are -- there's been multiple Hollywood starlets who've declined to name their absuer/harasser for fear of retribution. When you're playing their game, on their field, even if you have some power, you're still at their whim, you're still also having to publicly admit you were assaulted or harassed, which is embarrassing, esp when you then get talked about and marginalized like Jenn has because of totally unrelated parts of her life and career.
These a-holes in power can make or break your career, or with a quick phone call your reputation. This applies at ESPN or KPMG as well.
I agree someone has to eventually come forward, which is why there's been a public benefit to Weinstein getting exposed and #metoo. Finally that eventually has come for a lot of women and their tormenters. Now hopefully in the future, women will feel more comfortable not only coming forward, but naming and shaming these a-holes.
That's true, a lot of guys do it on the DL and no one else knows. But I would assume we all know at least one guy who's too handsy or makes the wrong joke in front of the wrong crowd at the wrong time. Those are the folks we should either be exposing or at least pulling aside and saying, "this is not cool, you're putting yourself at risk and making other people feel uncomfortable."
Agree that if there's some mental deterioration, I won't go after the guy. But his team needs to protect the women who come in contact with him. They know this is going on and they allow it to go on, that's unacceptable. He's also making lame ass jokes like "who's my fav comedian?... David Cop-a-feel" as he squeezes women's butts, which is obviously gross, but yea if he can't keep his hands to himself for whatever reason, he doesn't need to be allowed near women.
I think the social elements of the line between harassment and not are often grey and often in the eye of the beholder.
I have had many instances, especially as a 20 something of women older than me in the work environment making sexualized comments and asking sexual questions of me. They make sexual jokes towards other women and men.
Also, it's not at all uncommon for men and women to engage in work romances and flings especially in larger organizations. I also did this when younger. And I observed others doing this and women in my office talked to me about these things. I've had women grab my ass, comment on my appearance, and my relationship status. All things, if presented without context and and also if it were reversed might be seen in a different light.
Hell, my now wife was an undergrad at a university I was employed by as a postdoc. She was in a different department and the sister of one of my co-workers. you can imagine some of the office commentary involving my now brother in law.
I don't think of any of these situations as particularly inappropriate. As a 40 something, I am quite careful not to harass anyone. I don't make sexualized jokes in my office environment. But, others may not be as careful. Most of the time, I believe there no ill intent. But even without ill intent, all it take is one axis 2 and you are screwed.
People are people.
I have had many instances, especially as a 20 something of women older than me in the work environment making sexualized comments and asking sexual questions of me. They make sexual jokes towards other women and men.
Also, it's not at all uncommon for men and women to engage in work romances and flings especially in larger organizations. I also did this when younger. And I observed others doing this and women in my office talked to me about these things. I've had women grab my ass, comment on my appearance, and my relationship status. All things, if presented without context and and also if it were reversed might be seen in a different light.
Hell, my now wife was an undergrad at a university I was employed by as a postdoc. She was in a different department and the sister of one of my co-workers. you can imagine some of the office commentary involving my now brother in law.
I don't think of any of these situations as particularly inappropriate. As a 40 something, I am quite careful not to harass anyone. I don't make sexualized jokes in my office environment. But, others may not be as careful. Most of the time, I believe there no ill intent. But even without ill intent, all it take is one axis 2 and you are screwed.
People are people.
I don't have any great respect or affection for Sterger and find her initial approach to fame rather crass. I would not be particularly proud of her path if she was my daughter.
However, she has every right to speak out, and these guys sound like scumbags. What she experienced sucks. She didn't go right from the first row of the FSU game to ESPN's offices...she clearly had done enough to establish that her intentions (misguided or not) were toward being a legitimate part of the media. There is no rational way to blow this off like she was just some viral "celebrity" that was looking to party. She was very clearly trying to advance her media career, and was treated poorly.
As far as I know, I don't see that she's asking for money, or claiming she was violated and asking for legal charges. She's calling out the culture of the institution. While some of these things making the rounds rise to legal sexual assault, the majority of them are just really crude, unfair, demeaning behavior that no woman should have to experience. It's a culture change that's needed, and the biggest part of that is people standing up and saying "This is happening" and "This is not ok."
I do have a problem with some of the conflating of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape that's happening. We need to establish clear definitions of all those very bad things. What George Bush did was NOT ok...but I fear classifying him as a rapist, or someone that tries to kiss a woman in a bar because he misreads signals a rapist, gives cover to actual rapists. Repercussions are appropriate, but overall the better path is to stigmatize harassment and unwanted attentions, not to undermine the special horror that is rape. So totally unfair to rape victims. Someone that is raped does not have the same experience as someone who had a guy put his hand on her shoulder in a bar, and rape shouldn't be normalized like that.
However, she has every right to speak out, and these guys sound like scumbags. What she experienced sucks. She didn't go right from the first row of the FSU game to ESPN's offices...she clearly had done enough to establish that her intentions (misguided or not) were toward being a legitimate part of the media. There is no rational way to blow this off like she was just some viral "celebrity" that was looking to party. She was very clearly trying to advance her media career, and was treated poorly.
As far as I know, I don't see that she's asking for money, or claiming she was violated and asking for legal charges. She's calling out the culture of the institution. While some of these things making the rounds rise to legal sexual assault, the majority of them are just really crude, unfair, demeaning behavior that no woman should have to experience. It's a culture change that's needed, and the biggest part of that is people standing up and saying "This is happening" and "This is not ok."
I do have a problem with some of the conflating of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape that's happening. We need to establish clear definitions of all those very bad things. What George Bush did was NOT ok...but I fear classifying him as a rapist, or someone that tries to kiss a woman in a bar because he misreads signals a rapist, gives cover to actual rapists. Repercussions are appropriate, but overall the better path is to stigmatize harassment and unwanted attentions, not to undermine the special horror that is rape. So totally unfair to rape victims. Someone that is raped does not have the same experience as someone who had a guy put his hand on her shoulder in a bar, and rape shouldn't be normalized like that.
Is Jenn not getting this job years ago the reason we now have to listen to Beth Mowins call football games?
Just because you liked it doesn't make it appropriate. What if it was a male, 300-lb biker type that was slapping your ass and telling you what he wanted to do to you. Feel the same way?
I think there are grey areas, I don't think much of what you mention here falls into those areas. I imagine that many of the women that worked in that environment were mortified and hated that environment. Because a few learned to "play the game" doesn't mean that it was cool for all the women there.
That's without even touching on all the ways culturally that those experiences don't affect a woman the same way they affect you. That's a bit like saying you don't think hurricanes are a big deal because you didn't get THAT much rain in say, Nashville.
Couple things to note:
a) good on you for being careful
b) shame on others for not taking the time to be aware how what they're about to say or do might be taken those around them
Knowing your audience is key, when in doubt, don't say or do it. It's called impulse control and emotional intelligence, for some reason people just act they way they want to and blame others for not being in on the "joke".
Like you said, people are people, we're all different and we ought to take that into account before grabbing someone's ass or telling a dumb joke.
I'm a male, and I don't want to go to a strip club when interviewing with a new company.
I didn't say I liked it or not. I said I was not offended by it. One can choose to take offense or not. One can interpret malice or not. Whether malice is interpreted often depends on the personalities involved.
In some cases, I liked it. Eg, when the former model, md/phd asked me for a ride home and then initiated sex... yeah, that was ok with me.
In some cases, I didn't... because I was not attracted to the person and I was not interested. In one case, a woman with a personality disorder and senior to me in the organization was running around telling people I was staring at her breasts and was hitting on her. I'm fairly confident no one believed this, at least no one proximal because they'd seen the women that I tended to date and they'd seen and interacted with me. She was not attractive. Further even in the context of women I did interact with socially outside of work, no one was aware of that at work. Meaning my behavior toward everyone male or female was the same in the work environment. I comported myself professionally. Her behavior and assertions were not wanted by me. I did ignore them. Why? What is the gain by confrontation.
We encounter people with personality disorders and low emotional intelligence every day. Women suffer from these problems at similar rates to men. This is turning into yet another male witch hunt and the issue is far more symmetrical than that. Further, those with emotional intelligence should be able to recognize that others may lack it. Ie I chose not to bother dealing with the woman who saying stuff about me because I knew she had a problem. She was otherwise a very bright and productive co worker. So, despite her obvious flaw I saw her as a net positive for the office.
Last edited:
I wouldn't either. I would almost think it was a test to see if I would decline.
Depending on who they are, she also has to worry about legalities and then the media of back and forth accusations.. Many of these people will fight back and ESPN has the money to bury her in lawyers. You're right, it may embolden them, at the same time it may put them on notice that she's willing to speak and if someone else comes out, she'll have their back. So maybe it will protect future women in those situations.
I'm not saying what she should have done. Why is it about what she should have done in that situation? Why is it that every time we talk about sexual assault/harassment/rape/etc... the question is always about what the victim did wrong. She wanted the job, she was put in an uncomfortable situation. None of those solutions you provided are very appealing given the situation it seems she found herself in. She tried to go along and play along because she wanted the job and didn't want to make people angry, reporting it just gets her a reputation and winds up with her being blackballed in the future. Maybe there was a polite way to decline once she realized where things were heading, but at that point the harassment had already occurred.
How is this turning into a male witch hunt?!
There are a lot of guys out there who...
- knowingly say or do things that make women uncomfortable.
- are capable of knowing their actions make women uncomfortable but don't spend the time to care.
- know the guys doing this but aren't saying anything.
Some of guys are now, rightfully, being put on blast.
I more than welcome you to step forward and complain about being sexually harassed if it bothers you, but if it doesn't that's no reason to say it shouldn't bother a woman who was subjected to the same or worse.
I'd also bet if you stepped forward, your complaints would be taken much more seriously (and be much more tarnishing to the women you accused) than a woman in the same position stepping forward.
Any perceived symmetries are anecdotal and grounded in denial and rather than fact. This false vail of naivete needs to stop.
witch-hunt
ˈwiCH ˌhənt/
noun
historical
Yeah....I'm ok with that. If your view is that it's ok to treat women this way then I'm good with searching you out and harassing you.
ˈwiCH ˌhənt/
noun
historical
- :the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views
Yeah....I'm ok with that. If your view is that it's ok to treat women this way then I'm good with searching you out and harassing you.
There is no solution.
You can't beat biology. Deep down, no matter how much we try to suppress it, we're animals. We want to dominate vs other animals, and we want to maximize our own chances for success (in whatever context you take that).
"People" in the general sense:
Are always going to hurt and kill other people
Are always going to try and dominate other groups of people
Are always going to take what they want.
Are always going to use violence, intimidation, etc.
The kind of evolution that is needed to drop all of those instincts is going to take many more thousands of years to finally fall out of our DNA. I figure humans have been around for a few million years, and we've only been out of the caves for a few thousand. How many more years before we all actually want to work together, look out for each other, treat everyone fairly, etc.? It's not going to happen while any one of us is alive, nor our kids, nor their kids.
So, the only option is to make the punishment side so severe that it counters all the instincts. That works great for anything for which there's evidence used to convict. For any "he said/she said" crimes, it's going to continue to be hard to get the evidence to convict people. So, I guess we'll continue to choose who to believe and who to dismiss. Alleged crimes will continue to come out decades after they happen, and nothing but public shaming will end up happening in most of those cases.
Likely so, but discussions like these, things like #metoo, and women coming forward to say what famous men have done to them is a start in making a small change (enabling more women to step forward, creating broader awareness of the scope of the problem, and hopefully providing enough of a threat to men to curtail their behavior).
There is no absolute solution but that doesn't mean you don't shoot for measures and conversations that gradually reduce the problem.
The solution is not contributing to the problem. To calling it out when you see it instead of going along. To not blaming the victim.
OR... We reject the current societal construct, go full "Purge" and fix the things that we need fixing without waiting for people to take action who have no motivation to change things, because the current setup benefits them too much.
IMO, no one in any position of leadership would benefit more from things being the way they *should* be than the way things currently are. Since they're programmed at a genetic level to look out for themselves, it won't change. And even of someone breaks from the norm and tries to change thing, they're so outnumbered on every side that it wouldn't make a difference.
Any perceived assymetries? Strong statement. Go take a google scholar or pubmed jaunt form the domestic violence path and you'll find rates of violence amongst men and women are essentially even.
There are many cultural and perceive power discrepancy issues that dovetail into this. I'd bet that a more than insignificant share of these involve personality disorders of both the perceiver and the actor. It's good practice in work situations and other environments really to avoid as much as possible any action that can be construed or spun in any way to be harassment or sexualized.
It's also good practice to try and recognize personality disorders and not them in your environment.
That may be true, but a strong component of the issue is power. And right now men have a majority of the power. Whether it's physical or political, we have it. Yes, we're still harassed, but it's not an epidemic because we tend to hold more power.
The one person I have no sympathy for is EK. She made her own bed, and her story had more holes than Swiss cheese well before any lawyers got involved. First she said she was drugged, and then she said she was knocked over the head. Neither of which drug tests or the hospital nurses/doctors backed up. She was flat out lying and then went looking for a payday once the dirt bag family and lawyers got involved.
Based on his past track record, if old Willie Meggs thought there was even a small chance that Winston did it, he would have hauled his butt into jail and to trial. The fact that Willie found no reason to charge him speaks volumes to me as well.
EK is one of the women that actually make it bad for those who have truly been assaulted and raped.
Meh, I do feel a little bad for her. She obviously got caught up in a lie she initially made to her roommate and didn't know how to get out of it once the roommate called her mom. Yeah, she could have not told the stupid lie, or come clean afterwards, but after some of the comments from the family I think you know why she didn't. In for a penny, in for a pound. I don't think it was about the money after that, I think she was just in too deep. If she had better people around her it could have gone differently, but I suppose they figured her name was mud, might as well get paid.
See. The problem with these situations is you don't really know who to feel bad for. We don't know what happened exactly. We don't know what ek perceived. We don't know what Winston perceived.
In some cAses it is very clear. Woman beat up. Stranger situation. Defensive wounds. Etc. but the more common situation is the ek winston one. She described him as polite. Is it the same crime? Say she didn't communicate her lack of consent in a way clear to Winston. Is that the same felony crime? Should it be?
Perception does matter. If Winston perceived consent and ek did not, is it rape? You can't tell if someone is lying really. You can construct a narrative from witnesses and other variables but ultimately in these situations the crime is in the perception. And this assumes substantial normative ranges of emotional intelligence and shared experiences.
If you think about it this makes the tragedy of the situation much greater. It's why I'm saying it is important to spot personality disorders because those with said problem have disordered social perceptions. Cynically, id say we have a bunch of antisocials having sex with borderlines and it causes 95 percent of the drama.
Last edited:
Something obviously happened that she was upset about. And if Winston's story was accurate, she was harassed, it just wasn't Winston, it was Casher.
First, I don't think this is the thread to re-litigate the Winston/EK scandal.
But to your point about personality disorders, yes that's all well and good but that shouldn't stop us from exposing the Harvey Weinsteins and Bill O'Reillys of the world, both famous and middling super market managers. Men of their ilk have left no doubt as to their motives and awareness of their deeds, whether with one victim or dozens.
It also doesn't absolve other men from exposing guys we know knowingly engage in obvious harassment/abuse and if it's borderline / they're too foolish to know what they're doing, at a minimum pulling them aside and putting them in check so in the future there is no confusion as to the innocence of their actions.
I've never seen someone engage in obvious harassment. I have seen people make jokes that if someone chose to be offended could be used to make a case of that sort. In the case of people like o'Reilly, who make a living saying polarizing things, I am sure there is no shortage of people who would choose to take offense and paint him the prog left sin of the hour. Weaponizing victim status is a strong tool. I've seen it used very effectively personally.
Interesting choice of words, "someone chose to be offended", letting the person who chose to offend off the hook scott free with no accountability?
Somehow so many people put it on the woman, "hey why are you being so uptight", "hey, i thought you were cool with that type of talk, you never said anything before," -- not realizing all the while it's the man's behavior that's had them on edge the whole time.
I'm not a woman so I can't speak for them, but as a minority who's heard his share of racial epithets and low brow simpleton racial jokes trust me, I've had to grit my teeth and go along with it because the idiots making those asinine comments were cutting my check and already being on the outside of the 'good old boys club', calling them on their bs would further hamper my career. It's been more than just a nuisance in my life and I can't imagine who it'd feel to hear those comments while someone leers at my breasts or grabs my ass. I consider myself lucky not to have to deal with that when all im trying to do is get paid and go home.
The O'Reilly comment can be addressed in the thread dedicated to his antics.
This is how I feel. I think she quickly got caught up in something that got out of her control.
I also think that while her story as told (any version) does not stack up, I do think it's entirely possible, if not likely, that she experienced something unpleasant or regrettable. Something that while not potentially rising to a crime, nonetheless isn't "nothing".
I think the fact that she was quickly lost control of the situation, combined with genuinely feeling she was wronged/taken advantage of, resulted in her feeling the need to double down on the whole thing. Money or not, her life was ruined by the entire thing and I'm not sure that was fully of her choosing, despite what was probably a fairly spontaneous decision to lie, so I've never been without sympathy for her.
I chose my words carefully. We make choices about how we feel about things. In many situations, there is gray. You can be offended or not. In some cases racial humor is okay. I choose not to engage in it as a white male because it is too risky that someone will choose to be offended or misconstrue a comment or that I will legitimately offend someone which I would feel terribly if I did.
I think if people chose to be offended less we'd be better off and, of the same token, if people chose to offend less and were more self aware we'd be better off. No one wants to walk on eggshells everywhere they go.
In many cases, there's no gray. Eg sleep with me or you won't get this job. Or calling some one by their anatomy constantly despite being asked not to. The latter is easy to intervene and deal with. The former is not.
As an example, in this thread strip clubs were brought up. I've never personally been to a strip club. It would make me uncomfortable to go to one on a job interview. On the other hand, if it is the cultural of the workplace that it is open in this manner or the guys all go to strip clubs together, maybe in some situation it would be a more inclusive culture to invite a woman to join. Personally I think it probably safer just not to mix strip clubs and work, but even with that I could almost see a culture of inclusion argument that might work in some
circumstance.
Last edited:
The idea that any actions or communication is a-ok unless the recipient "chooses" to take offense is absurd. It fundamentally undermines the fabric of a functional civil society.
Overdefining harrassment and political correctness by it's early champions absolutely got us to this point. It has now given cover to a-holes of all stripes who invoke the memory of institutions relabeling "master" and "slave" drives, propagating "differently sighted", and banning the word "picnic" to cast their rude and abusive and harassing behavior. After all, if everything is offensive, nothing is.
Most of the things that are now excused as "Well, sorry, I guess I'm not politically correct!" are things that weren't considered appropriate for years before anybody had heard the term.
But it's now time to push back on the pushback, and call an a-hole an a-hole and a creep a creep.
Overdefining harrassment and political correctness by it's early champions absolutely got us to this point. It has now given cover to a-holes of all stripes who invoke the memory of institutions relabeling "master" and "slave" drives, propagating "differently sighted", and banning the word "picnic" to cast their rude and abusive and harassing behavior. After all, if everything is offensive, nothing is.
Most of the things that are now excused as "Well, sorry, I guess I'm not politically correct!" are things that weren't considered appropriate for years before anybody had heard the term.
But it's now time to push back on the pushback, and call an a-hole an a-hole and a creep a creep.
Here's a simple rule. Don't make racial, gender, or sexual jokes while at work.
It's never ok to mix strip clubs and work unless you work in a strip club or are a vendor for a strip club or are in Health Services/regulation involving strip clubs.
It's not that hard.
Add religious and political to that. Really best to simply not discuss politics or religion at all joking or not.
Power. Correct. Hence me choice of terms, weaponizing victim status. Racism and sexism are really things. Bullying is real. But, we must understand that leveling the charge is power. It can legitimately break people. As such, it is tempting tool to use when you are desperate, maybe not progressing in your career how you want, angry at someone, or maybe you just like drama (personality disorder)? As such, we must take such claims very seriously. They can't be nebulous, grey things. The charge inofitself cannot be powerful enough to break people. I guess this is consistent with my view of religion. Religion is dangerous and a source of in group out group exclusion. It lacks falsifiability and thus it is an error to use it as a source of truth about the nature or the universe or the absolute objective existence of a moral truth. Claims with big consequences need big proof.
I agree. Those are good rules.
What if you started a company with your friends and you guys go to strip clubs or maybe just bars to discuss work things or unwind. What if you hire muslims who do t go to places that serve alcohol? Are you now creating a good old boys club? How to do you address? Forbid fraternizing outside of work?
If a person is walking the streets in flashy clothes alone at 3am and they are robbed and roughed up, who is at fault? Certainly the person that robbed and hurt them but I would contend the person walking alone at 3am in flashy clothes created the crime of opportunity and advanced the conditions of the event and is partially at fault.
At fault? No.
Are they things they could do to have prevented it based on the world we live in? Sure. But at fault? Absolutely not. Not even a smidgeon.
Once you start hiring people outside of your close knit group of friends then some of the good old boy ways of doing things need to go away. Discuss business at work or over working lunches. Don't do it at strip clubs.
If you want to continue going out to strip clubs with your "friends" after work that's fine, but keep those as personal things, not work related in any manner.
Agreed. There is a scale that once reached, behavior will have to be modified to account for a growing workforce. I would have thought that logically that is understood (not you kc, but BK or others). For example, Facebook may have started as a college kid business, but clearly all of FB doesn't go to the Pink Pony anymore (doubt the ever did).
Similar threads
